Why Metiria Turei has to resign

[At a Friday press conference, Metiria Turei said she would not resign as Green co-leader, and that she would not apologise for her self-confessed benefit fraud. She did say that she would not seek any ministerial portfolio – Editor]

Some time ago the Labour Party and I fell out of love.

The rift is now so deep that not even Jacinda’s winning smile lifts my spirits.

The party and I were once spooning on the couch; chilling and watching Netflix. Now I leave business-like voicemails once a week. So it was with great interest that I attended a recent “Meet the Greens” event in central Auckland. Co-leader James Shaw convened this event for Green-curious city types like myself. Shaw was impressive: educated, articulate, thoughtful. A leader. I came away from the event feeling quite positive about the possibility that if the Labour Party were to fade away as the left-leaning party of choice, then there was a well-qualified alternative waiting, very politely, in the wings. My calls to the Labour Party felt like they were heading for once a month. Maybe just a letter, and then just a Christmas card.

Reading about recent events involving the other co-leader (there are only two – for now) Metiria Turei was, therefore, greatly disheartening. Turei has admitted that while receiving a benefit she did not disclose the full details of her living situation. At the time of writing, more facts are emerging but it seems that she did not disclose that she was in a flatting situation that either involved traditional flatmates or potentially family members. The practical significance of this, in simple terms, is that the net rent she would have been required to pay was, I assume, less than she said it was. It was probably quite a lot less than it was.

When I initially heard the story, my initial impression was of a hard-working mother scratching a living together, collecting a benefit and also doing some undisclosed work. Operating from this assumption, when the topic arose in a discussion, I defended her, taking the broader view that her motivation was not so much financial gain but trying to do the right thing by her offspring. As a matter of philosophical/political viewpoint, like a lot of people, I’m not too troubled by the idea of people doing a bit of work while receiving a benefit. I tend to think that the sense of independence the work brings tends to encourage people to do more of it, which may motivate them, in appropriate circumstances, to move off the benefit altogether. If the law does not make this possible then, politically speaking, this is an area where it needs to catch up. That being the case, I am not too troubled by people not adhering to it strictly.

This moral defence became impossible to sustain when I learnt the actual story: It’s not about work; it’s about rent.

That’s a completely different ball game, morally speaking.

In my opinion, there is a qualitative difference between failing to disclose carrying out work – which by definition is providing service to someone that they need and are willing to pay for, gaining skills, and potentially putting oneself on a path that leads away from a benefit altogether – and not disclosing expenses which carries with it none of these positive elements.

All said and done, it is just dishonesty. At least as of the time of writing – and I wonder seriously whether the position will change by the time this is published — Turei is staunchly defending what she had done.

Now, I hasten to add that even in that situation, if it fell to me to decide what should be done with an ordinary person who had been caught engaging in this kind of activity, then I would probably take a pretty benign attitude. I would probably seek an assurance that the conduct would stop and then examine the possibility that the money would be refunded. Punishing people who are already down on their luck with the full force of the criminal justice system is not something I would particularly want to see.

This brings us to the pointy part of the argument. Turei is not an ordinary person. She is the leader of a political party, running for national office.

Under what I understand to be the Green party’s constitutional rules, were it to become the dominant party in a coalition government, then it is Turei, and not Shaw, who would become Prime Minister. This possibility seems improbable but it is not completely out of the question given the Labour Party’s dismal recent polling.

A more realistic scenario is that the Green Party may form part of a governing coalition where Green Party parliamentary members, including Turei, are naturally considered for ministerial positions. How would Turei, in good conscience, occupy any role which involved considering the propriety of others? She could not. This counts her out of a number of portfolios including, but not limited to, justice, police and internal affairs. In fact, it probably counts her out of any role because all of the positions involve this kind of decision-making, at least to some extent.

So what we are faced with is the leader of a political party who has admitted dishonesty which is, in legal terms, a criminal offence who could not seriously accept either the position of prime minister or most (or probably any) ministerial posts. This makes her position as leader untenable.

At the “Meet the Greens” event I had the opportunity to put to Shaw some questions about the utility of the co-leadership model. He offered an articulate defence to which there were a number of aspects. One of which, as I recall it, was that you get two for the price of one or something to that effect. Actually, I now realise that this argument has some force because if something happens to one, the remaining leader can bravely carry on without an unseemly leadership contest.

The scene is set for Turei to the right thing. She should resign.

And if I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of my urban liberal cohort this is what needs to happen for it to get the broader support it seeks. They would almost certainly get my vote.

Steve Keall barrister is a civil and commercial disputes lawyer based in Auckland; www.stevekeall.com